SHOULD WE END OUR FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS?

2 Feb. 2019

Dear Friends and Patriots,

          The title of this article reflects words in President George Washington’s so-called Farewell Address.   I’ve always revered Washington’s wisdom and understanding of the proper stances our government should take in all aspects of its undertakings. Here are three excerpts from the Farewell Address that are germane to today’s discussion:

The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world, so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat, therefore, let those engagements be unwise to extend them.

Taking care always to keep ourselves by suitable establishments on a respectable defensive posture, we may safely trust to temporary alliances for extraordinary emergencies.

Ponder, if you will, on a few inferences of Washington’s words. He was speaking of the United States as a merchant nation. His vision was of a nation engaged in international commerce and protective of its ability to freely trade with any other nation of the world without being drawn into any foreign alliances, intrigues, or armed conflicts. He evidently believed our nation should always maintain a strong defensive capability, but not actively engage in any military adventures in foreign lands.   How far we have come from that vision!

          Today we are engaged in a great national debate, spurred by President Trump’s announced intention to withdraw troops from Syria and Afghanistan. On Thursday of this week the Senate passed a Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sponsored amendment to a Middle East legislative package that warned against the President’s intent, which was characterized as a “precipitous withdrawal.” In other words, they were saying, “Now, hold your horses, Mr. President, we can’t just cut and run.”   What was interesting about the vote was many of the most progressive Democrats, including all four who have announced their intention to run for President in 2020 voted “No” on the amendment. It would seem the progressives are in favor of Trump’s intent. Even a stopped clock is right twice every day.

          The amendment asks the President to certify his statement that ISIS (Islamic State in Syria) is indeed completely defeated as an effective threat. It also asks that he clarify his plans for Afghanistan before moving forward. The bottom line on that is the Senate doesn’t believe either ISIS or the Taliban are defeated and think we should continue to live up to our previous security agreements that keep us engaged in those foreign lands.

          I offer a few thoughts on both ISIS and the Taliban.

          ISIS is far more than a terrorist organization. Even if it was only a terrorist organization many of my statements would still be germane. ISIS is the embodiment of extreme militant Islamist philosophy. ISIS is an aspirational organization and an idea. In some respects, it’s a bit like the United States. We are also an aspirational construct and represent an idea. The greatest difference between America and ISIS is in our foundational references.   America references Biblical truths of Natural Rights and Natural Law, where ISIS references Qur’anic truths and Sharia Law.   Those are huge differences. Our tradition emphasizes peace, harmony, and accommodation, where theirs emphasizes conquest, submission, and a rigidly dogmatic and theocratic ideology. ISIS can be defeated militarily, which we should see in the coming days, but it cannot be eradicated.   As long as there are adherents to its essential philosophy it will still be alive. As long as there is a spirit among the community of Muslims that believes in the future of a single caliphate, the world-wide dominion of Islam, and the subjugation of all who are considered infidels, there will remain the potential of an ISIS, just with a different name. They will be the same people with the same exact purpose as ISIS; we’ll just call them something else. This is a truth that has to be accepted. We can kill off every single armed ISIS combatant, but that alone will not defeat them. It will only cause them to mutate. Bullets and bombs do not kill ideologies.

          The Taliban is very much like ISIS in their philosophic presentation, but with a notable difference. The Taliban has not evidenced any internationalist inclinations. They appear to be concerned with Afghanistan, their native land. They don’t appear to be overly interested in exporting jihad, or the hijra, or in doing much more than re-taking the ownership rights to their own nation from the west-installed and supported bunch of thieves that currently run things from Kabul. Today the Taliban holds sway over 40% of the countryside and has finally engaged in something like peace talks with the Afghani government.

          President Trump wants to pull out of active engagement in both Syria and Afghanistan.   He sees both as quagmires and drains on our economy. He sees the essential futility of our undertakings. Meanwhile, our Senate is full of millionaires who listen to lobbyists. Many of those lobbyists are people who shill for national and international arms merchants; lobbyists for ever-more expenditures of our defense budget, no matter how done.   It’s not that they like war, but war is definitely the best way to ensure our Department of Defense budgets stay fat.   Our Senators would do well not to listen to those lobbyists, but then, how do you think they all got to be millionaires in the first place? I know - I’m being unkind.

          Syria and ISIS present an interesting case. If you agree with my logic regarding what ISIS is and the potential to deal with it, you might agree there’s no way President Trump could ever certify to their destruction. ISIS is a shape-shifting entity. It existed before as a part of Al Qaeda and a few other active Muslim Brotherhood cadres, now it’s ISIS, and next year it will be something else. What seems missing in all the conversations about ISIS is any acknowledgement of exactly what they represent. It’s a fundamental error that’s now perverting the ability of President Trump to exercise common sense. Leaving Syria makes common sense. We do need to make considerations for the Kurds, since they were our principle allies on the ground, but otherwise, there is no compelling reason to stay.

          Our Senate should understand that staying engaged militarily in the Middle and Near East only aids and abets the Arab states. It’s true that Kuwait, Dubai, Qatar, Bahrain, Oman, and Saudi Arabia want to see us remain. But theirs is a completely selfish rationale. They love the idea that infidels die to protect their gilded lifestyles. You will note that none of them are engaged on the ground. You do understand it all, don’t you? You do understand that ISIS is no friend of any of the Arab royal families, and that it presents a far greater existential threat to those regimes than it ever did to America, don’t you? It’s just true. We have people sitting in the dirt in Syria, engaged in deadly combat, risking death and actually dying so those preening Arab wastrels can continue living their exalted lives. Is it just me that thinks that entire arrangement is just … wrong? It may be that our foreign policy was previously influenced too much by our purported (and actually phony) dependence on Middle Eastern oil.   I know it wasn’t because of any egalitarian urges on the part of any of our administrations. America has always acted out of self -interest, but that doesn’t mean our self-interest was accurately understood or expressed.

          The Taliban seems to be onto something of late. Their recent statements sound almost British in their tone and content. They’ve signaled they don’t want to be the sole masters of Afghanistan (which, of course is untrue), but are seeking an accommodation with the national government; a power-sharing agreement.   That appears to be a pronouncement that can pave the way for President Trump to make good on his withdrawal intent. If the Afghani government is dumb enough to strike a deal with the Taliban, who are we to intrude? It’s to our advantage in all respects to encourage any and all peace initiatives in that country, even if history tells us any agreement will have a lifespan of about a day after we complete our pullout. Should we care? It’s okay if you do, but you should understand the truth of the Taliban and also the truth that we knew exactly who they were back when they ran their country. Until Al Qaeda got stupid and pulled off those 9-11 attacks we were content to let the Taliban revert Afghanistan back to its 11^th century inclinations. We originally attacked Al Qaeda training camps there, not the Taliban. It was when the Taliban went all jihadi on us that we ran them out of power.   If you are attuned to this discussion you might accept this question: If they were good enough for us and the Afghani people in 2010, why do we object so much now?

          Many will bring up the specter of Iran and their infernal intrigues. Again, I point to the Arab Gulf states and how they hide behind us. Why do we allow it? Why do they fight no battles of their own, all the while financing both jihad and hijra efforts against the West? Why, indeed? Again, why do we allow it? If they’re so afraid of Iran, let them do something about it. It’s not our fight.

          The America President Washington envisioned would take no part in the affairs of any state in the Middle or Near East. We would trade with them if such trade proved advantageous, and we would otherwise ignore them. They have nothing we need. They offer us nothing of value. All talk of their strategic importance has to be taken with large grains of salt. If Russia and China want to immerse themselves in those pits of Hell, then I say, let them. Russia should understand well. They had their experience in Afghanistan and weren’t a bit unhappy over their decision to quit the field there. They want their port on the Mediterranean that Sidon provides, but otherwise understand the risks they incur whenever they intrude too far inland. China will find little of use in Arabia. If they decide to cozy up to those Muslim royals they’ll soon figure out they’re being scammed. The Chinese are far from stupid. They get far more bang for their yen in central Africa than they’ll ever get in Arabia.

          The main point being made here is President Trump appears to better understand America’s true interests in this instance than Congress.   Whether he’s aligned with the vision of President Washington by accident or by design, the alignment is clearly obvious. It’s a vision that should always have served as our nation’s beacon. It was a true vision when Washington first wrote it, and it would have served the nation well if we’d tried to hew to it ever since. It’s our divergence from that vision that’s led us astray.

          The longer I live and the more I study the legacy of our founders the more convinced I am of the truth that all who have led us since have been far lesser beings.  But, I have to admit I have hope – President Trump shows great promise. It’s too bad he’s handicapped by the sorry state of our Congress. If those people actually tried to work for the interests of the people and the nation there’s no telling what our country could achieve. But, they don’t.

In Liberty,
Steve